MOSCOW-Russian President Vladimir Putin says he doesn't care about alleged Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election because the actions weren't connected to his government.

Even if true, that would be damning. What, you don't care about criminal behavior by your citizens as long as you can't be directly blamed for it.

In an interview with American broadcaster NBC News that aired Saturday, Putin also suggested that some of the 13 Russian nationals indicted by the United States may not be ethnically Russian.

As if that has any bearing on the question of the Russian government's responsibility, outside the mind of a committed racist.

"Maybe they are not even Russians, but Ukrainians, Tartars or Jews, but with Russian citizenship, which should also be checked," he said.

Note both his defining who is a real Russian based on ethnicity as opposed to citizenship, and the traditional scapegoating of the Jews (as well as other ethnic minorities and political opponents) for the misconduct of his associates.

Putin responded brusquely when interviewer Megyn Kelly asked if he condoned the interference that was alleged in last month's U.S. indictment by special counsel Robert Mueller.

"It's all the same to me. To me it absolutely makes no difference because they do not represent the government," Putin answered, according to the Russian-language interview transcript posted Saturday by the Kremlin.

Putin said Russia has neither the tools nor the will to meddle in elections. He repeatedly complained during the interview that Washington has brushed off Russian initiatives to work together on cybersecurity issues.

Yes, how dare we not want to give the robbers the keys to our house?

"But the U.S. refuses to work like this and instead throws 13 Russians to the media," he said, going on to list the possible ethnicities that would make the suspects "not even Russian."

"Maybe they have dual citizenship or a green card; maybe the U.S. paid them for this. How can you know that? I do not know, either," the Russian leader said.

Putin claimed that the United States interferes in Russian elections "all the time" but that it was "impossible for us" to do the same.

I'm surprised that he would publicly preach his own country's weakness like that. But it wouldn't be Putin propaganda without getting some Whataboutism in there.

"First, we have principles whereby we do not allow others to interfere in our domestic affairs and do not get into the affairs of others....

Tell that to the people of the Ukraine and Syria.

Secondly, we don't have this quantity of tools," he said.

The NBC News interview was conducted in two parts, on March 1 and March 2. Kelly noted that Putin made the remark about not having the tools to disrupt the U.S. election shortly after he announced that Russia had developed major new nuclear weapons.

"This isn't missiles. This is an absolutely different sphere of activity," Putin responded.

So we're supposed to believe that the Russian government can't do this (despite their widely-known cyber-warfare capabilities), but that private individuals or organizations within Russia could? Or are we supposed to think that it was really a U.S. false flag attack, in collusion with those evil Jews?

Of course, the Neo-Nazi Trump base will just eat this up. I've been wondering for a while when they'd get around to scapegoating the Jews. Mark my words, when this is all over their narrative will be "Trump would have been a great President if it wasn't all ruined by the Jews." Especially since they'll have a highly-placed and notoriously corrupt Jewish member of the administration (Kushner) to be the face of the scapegoating campaign.

Anyway, this confirms my own view that Putinism, like the Trumpism that is its tool, is basically Nazism/fascism with a new coat of paint.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

The Russians were dumping on the Jews long before the Nazis even showed up on the scene. Blaming some crime on Jews or Tatars is not, for Putin, from the Nazi playbook, it's from the Czarist playbook. The Nazis didn't invent anti-Semitism, they were just highly effective at acting on it.

On the other hand, Czarism and Naziism are both forms of right-wing authoritarianism and given that Putin doesn't present himself as monarch by right of dynastic status, there's no compulsion for him not to mix and match.

...

Another point is that "Jews hacked the election" is inherently going to be less effective as a propaganda line outside of Eastern Europe, because the US is part of the 'Western Allies' bloc that generally absorbed the 'Nazis are bad, we have to stop hating Jews precisely because Nazis hated Jews really hard" meme. There may be a specific minority of people in Western European countries and the US who are still open to 'blame the Jews,' but it's gone from being a socially acceptable opinion (in the 1930s) to being an unacceptable one that marks the speaker as low-status.

Even neo-Nazis usually keep their anti-Jewish rants on the down-low, precisely because of how strongly it antagonizes the general public, including many right-wingers, i.e. the ones who consistently support Israel.

Excuse me, Friendly, but was the question about Russia's "affairs" or its "elections? Let's not move goalposts.

Firstly Simon, Putin was speaking more broadly in interfering in the affairs of others, the election interference was just an example. From the very article TRR linked.

Putin claimed that the United States interferes in Russian elections “all the time” but that it was “impossible for us” to do the same.

“First, we have principles whereby we do not allow others to interfere in our domestic affairs and do not get into the affairs of others….Secondly, we don’t have this quantity of tools,” he said.

Secondly by focussing ONLY on elections, American interference in other nations gets a free pass if that country doesn't have elections (obviously not focusing on Russia here). Heck, the US could literally help overthrow a democratically elected regime (1950s Iran or 1970s Chile) and you could argue, well they aren't interfering in the elections, because they did it after the election occurred. The broad question is "under what circumstances is it ok to interfere with another nation's internal affairs", NOT "under what circumstances is it ok to interfere with another nation's internal affairs via interference in their electoral processes." The latter is a purely arbitrarily distinction which doesn't change the broad principle being discussed, and is use to people trying to nitpick and make pseudo justifications "ah but when we do it, we do it in a different manner so its ok."

Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

MOSCOW-Russian President Vladimir Putin says he doesn't care about alleged Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election because the actions weren't connected to his government.

Even if true, that would be damning. What, you don't care about criminal behavior by your citizens as long as you can't be directly blamed for it.

Actually, why should he? I'm pretty sure that interfering with the US elections is not illegal according to Russian law, so there is no criminal action, from their point of view. The USA is well within their rights to investigate and prosecute if the people in question are within their borders, but unless there is an extradition treaty that covers this, Russia has no obligation to care.

A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay

Putin claimed that the United States interferes in Russian elections "all the time" but that it was "impossible for us" to do the same.

I'm surprised that he would publicly preach his own country's weakness like that. But it wouldn't be Putin propaganda without getting some Whataboutism in there.

Just for interest, do you belief Putin's claim that the US meddles more in Russia's affair than the other way round, or is that irrelevant to you? Think carefully before you answer.

This is obviously a loaded question positing a false dichotomy (either I don't believe the US meddles more, in which case you can paint me as an apologist for American Imperialism, or its irrelevant to me, in which case you can paint me as an apologist for American Imperialism), in another transparent attempt to deflect from Russia's wrongdoing by trying to paint his critics (in this case, me) as just hypocritical apologists for America instead. Which makes about as much sense as calling me a Putin loyalist because I criticize the US government.

But I'll answer anyway:

I don't know if, over the course of history, the US or Russia has meddled more in the others' affairs. The US is certainly not blameless. But Russia is certainly meddling far more effectively in America's politics right now, than vice versa. Since our current President was elected with Russian assistance (this has passed the point of speculation- the only question now is weather it can be proved that Trump personally colluded), and he has shown no real inclination to seriously challenge Russia on anything, even when faced with bipartisan support from Congress to do so.

The question of American wrongdoing is, again, not irrelevant to me. It is, however, irrelevant to this topic, because "Wahhh, you did something bad too" is not a defence for a crime, and bringing it up is more shameless Whataboutism intended to derail the discussion.

Why is this always the defence? Russia did something bad. "But America does bad things too!" And this gives Russia a blank cheque how, exactly?

In fact, this tactic has become so ubiquitous, particularly in any discussion regarding the actions of the Russian government or its allies, that I'd like to ask the moderators weather we could have an announcement or sticky regarding the use of "Whataboutism" as a debating tactic. In my opinion, it deserves to be listed alongside things like "ad hominem", "straw man", broken record debating, refusing to back up claims, etc., as a dishonest debating tactic.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

MOSCOW-Russian President Vladimir Putin says he doesn't care about alleged Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election because the actions weren't connected to his government.

Even if true, that would be damning. What, you don't care about criminal behavior by your citizens as long as you can't be directly blamed for it.

Actually, why should he? I'm pretty sure that interfering with the US elections is not illegal according to Russian law, so there is no criminal action, from their point of view. The USA is well within their rights to investigate and prosecute if the people in question are within their borders, but unless there is an extradition treaty that covers this, Russia has no obligation to care.

I figured that Russia would have general laws against hacking, identity theft, etc. that would cover at least some of this. Apologies if this assumption was in error, though if so I can't say that that improves my opinion of the Russian government.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

...yeah, one would think that even within Nigeria, attempting to pose as someone you are not for the purposes of scamming other people is a crime. And in fact, people have actually been arrested there for the classic Nigerian Prince email scam.

I cannot imagine that any country could legally overlook a crime, committed within its own borders, even against foreign nationals or countries. If I went out and mugged a Japanese national, the police would be bound to track me down and arrest me for it. The same would apply if I did it by getting on a computer and interfering with elections in Japan, unless for some godforsaken reason there's no regulation in Federal law against interfering with other countries' elections.

Which, to be honest, is kind of a fair point-- a country cannot necessarily legislate against what their citizens do in other countries, even digitally. There's a reason Saudi princes travel overseas to engage in debaucheries of the kind that get frowned upon and legislated out in their own home, but on the other hand, Saudi princes are something of a world unto themselves. That said, it's quite possible there's such a loophole in Russian law where they simply didn't think to say 'interfering in other countries' elections is illegal' because back when the law was codified that sort of thing was something governments did, not individuals.

The term itself is very vague.
What exactly would be the legal definition of "interfering in a foreign election"? What is the threshold for posting in a social network becoming interference? Is a scathing news coverage targetet against a candidate, like FOX does, an attempt to interfere in the US elections?

I'm not even sure that there is such a genereal "interference in an election" law. There are various specific actions that are illegal, but I don't think any of these criteria were met. Closest would be bribing or black-mailing, but that did not happen.

And while there are laws in the US against somebody interfering with an US election, my research has no far netted me any US laws actually forbidding an US citizen to interfere in other countries' elections. I'm not even sure if the US would even react to say, France, demanding extradiction of an US citizen for interfering in their election... Same for the chances of filing charges of their own against said citizen.

A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay

The argument could be made, I suppose, that foreign nationals organizing a widespread campaign of spreading misinformation on social media would constitute 'interference'. Fox News targeting opposition candidates is pretty much interference in the sense that it basically goes 'this person is BAD, you should vote for the other guy' and is free advertising, but it's under the guise of media coverage, so it gets a pass to some degree; it would not in other countries with more rigorous rules regarding media coverage of elections.

As to actual legalities... yeah, I suspect few countries have outright legislation against their citizens interfering in other countries' election. I would not be surprised if that changes within the next few decades. For right now, it's an effective technicality that prevents criminal claims being brought. The closest equivalent would be demanding that the foreign nationals be arrested and convicted of some type of international criminal act or diplomatic/economic sanctions might be brought to the table. One presumes that the International Criminal Court might be involved.

The argument could be made, I suppose, that foreign nationals organizing a widespread campaign of spreading misinformation on social media would constitute 'interference'.

That's where it gets weird, because what does one do if the information is wholly accurate and still impactful enough to affect voters, perhals on a forum like this?

"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"
- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

This is obviously a loaded question positing a false dichotomy (either I don't believe the US meddles more, in which case you can paint me as an apologist for American Imperialism, or its irrelevant to me, in which case you can paint me as an apologist for American Imperialism), in another transparent attempt to deflect from Russia's wrongdoing by trying to paint his critics (in this case, me) as just hypocritical apologists for America instead. Which makes about as much sense as calling me a Putin loyalist because I criticize the US government.

Actually its to figure out how strongly you adhere to the principle of "its wrong to interfere in another country's internal affairs in most instances.”You see if the US and Russia does it in equal amounts, then I would expect you to roughly give the same amount of time dedicated to criticising them, assuming you adhere to this principle. If the US does it more, I expect you to criticise them more if you adhere to this principle. Given that you criticise Russia more for doing this particular thing, .... well you can see where this is going right?

The question of American wrongdoing is, again, not irrelevant to me. It is, however, irrelevant to this topic, because "Wahhh, you did something bad too" is not a defence for a crime, and bringing it up is more shameless Whataboutism intended to derail the discussion. .

Hint – the line of questioning is not so much defending Russia, its focussing on YOU. Like I said, if you believe the principle about it being wrong to interfere in another country’s affairs, then one would expect your criticism should be spread out among all those who do so, not just Russia (more on that later).

Why is this always the defence? Russia did something bad. "But America does bad things too!" And this gives Russia a blank cheque how, exactly?

That isn't the thrust of my argument, which is why I asked you to think carefully on the answer. Its that if both do bad things, you should also criticise both. Since I am not a mind reader, when I see you criticising one actor and ignoring another actor who has arguably done more, what do you think I SHOULD suspect?

Let me tell you. Either you are
a. extremely ignorant about what one of the actors has done and hence is a useful idiot or

b. subscribe to the view that its ok for one of the actors to do it but wrong for the other. In which case you should come out and say it so we can debate that, and not waste time debating the principle applies to all when its clear that’s not what you really believe.

Since I became more interested in international politics in the late 90s early 2000s, I became aware that US geopolitical rivals have complained at least since that time of the US interfering in their domestic affairs. An example even now is he US government funded NED openly funds political opponents of governments it doesn’t like, under the guise of spreading democracy. This is equivalent if Putin personally donated money to Trump's campaign. How is this fucking different? This is just the chickens coming home to roost and it amuses me to see Americans jump up and down in self righteous fury. And the NED example BTW is more benign than what they have done in the past, like funding terrorists, er I mean freedom fighters in support of a religious theocracy which thankfully was overthrown.

In fact, this tactic has become so ubiquitous, particularly in any discussion regarding the actions of the Russian government or its allies, that I'd like to ask the moderators weather we could have an announcement or sticky regarding the use of "Whataboutism" as a debating tactic. In my opinion, it deserves to be listed alongside things like "ad hominem", "straw man", broken record debating, refusing to back up claims, etc., as a dishonest debating tactic.

Lets use an analogy to illustrate nuance which you lack.
A parking inspector gives a ticket to a person. The person asks why is he not giving tickets to those that other person (who turns out to be a relative of the inspector) when they did the same violation. TRR jumps in saying whataboutism and totally missing the point. Its not that the person being fined didn’t do anything wrong, but that the rules are not being applied equally. In doing so, you create another wrong, by having a two tier system.

My line of questioning is not to defend Russia (if I did that I would use a self defence argument rather than the US does it too argument BTW), its to point out people complaining about Russian interference are being very selective in applying the principle against interference in a country’s domestic affairs. The corollary of that is, these people don’t actually hold this principle, but rather believe in the principle its only bad when they do it to us. In which case, don’t waste people’s time and just state you believe it and then we can debate that.

Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Hint – the line of questioning is not so much defending Russia, its focussing on YOU.

So you admit that the entire point of your argument is to divert the discussion from the thread topic to an attack on me personally? Ie an ad hominem fallacy.

That being the case, I decline to engage.

My line of questioning is not to defend Russia (if I did that I would use a self defence argument rather than the US does it too argument BTW), its to point out people complaining about Russian interference are being very selective in applying the principle against interference in a country’s domestic affairs. The corollary of that is, these people don’t actually hold this principle, but rather believe in the principle its only bad when they do it to us. In which case, don’t waste people’s time and just state you believe it and then we can debate that.

Right, because I never post anything critical of the American government's actions abroad. But that is not the topic of this thread.

If you want to argue self-defence by Russia, that would at least be somewhat on-topic, rather than an ad hominem. But it would be on you to demonstrate:

a) That America is the aggressor. Against contemporary Russia, not digging up stuff from fifty or a hundred years ago.

b) That Russia's tactics of election interference are a necessary or effective way to defend itself (as opposed to advancing its interests abroad).

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

Excuse me, Friendly, but was the question about Russia's "affairs" or its "elections? Let's not move goalposts.

Firstly Simon, Putin was speaking more broadly in interfering in the affairs of others, the election interference was just an example. From the very article TRR linked.

Putin claimed that the United States interferes in Russian elections “all the time” but that it was “impossible for us” to do the same.

“First, we have principles whereby we do not allow others to interfere in our domestic affairs and do not get into the affairs of others….Secondly, we don’t have this quantity of tools,” he said.

The summary of the quote says Putin's talking about elections, then Putin uses the word 'affairs.' Unless the original article was lying, when Putin said 'affairs,' he was referring to 'elections.'

So stop moving the goalposts. There is no call to do so an attempt to deflect criticism of a dictator. Not when he is being criticized for setting in motion a chain of events that put one of the most ghastly fuckwits in the history of American politics into the White House.

Secondly by focussing ONLY on elections, American interference in other nations gets a free pass if that country doesn't have elections (obviously not focusing on Russia here).

That's funny, you were focusing on Russia a minute ago.

Stop moving the damn goalposts and concentrate on the matter at hand- namely, Putin trying to deflect responsibility for his own country's involvement in manipulating a foreign election. By claiming he lacked the capability, and that the Americans do it to him, and that it was 'Ukrainians, Tartars, or Jews' who did it, not 'real' Russians in any case. All of which is obvious bullshit and does not need or merit defense.

Heck, the US could literally help overthrow a democratically elected regime (1950s Iran or 1970s Chile) and you could argue, well they aren't interfering in the elections, because they did it after the election occurred. The broad question is "under what circumstances is it ok to interfere with another nation's internal affairs", NOT "under what circumstances is it ok to interfere with another nation's internal affairs via interference in their electoral processes." The latter is a purely arbitrarily distinction which doesn't change the broad principle being discussed, and is use to people trying to nitpick and make pseudo justifications "ah but when we do it, we do it in a different manner so its ok."

No one is doing this, except that you are blatantly trying to change the subject away from the specific bit of heinous bullshit being discussed, in an attempt to make it about some other heinous bullshit that happened forty years ago on another continent or something.

So you admit that the entire point of your argument is to divert the discussion from the thread topic to an attack on me personally? Ie an ad hominem fallacy.

That being the case, I decline to engage.

Its more on your standards than you as a person. Its mighty suspicious when its predominantly bad when Russia does it. And I am not talking the invasions per se which I know you've critcicised. I am talking about the smaller stuff Russia is being accused o, such as supporting one US faction over another. You are like an American who complains about other countries spying on the US and totally oblivious to the US doing the same.

Right, because I never post anything critical of the American government's actions abroad. But that is not the topic of this thread.

Never claimed you never criticised the US for doing anything bad overseas. I am talking about specifically about the things the US does which is similar to what Russia does. That is supporting political actors in a country they like better.

Frankly if all you can come up with about Russia doing it is the recent election, then Russia is outmatched by the US does because the US for years have funded political opponents of governments it doesn't like. The fact that Russia might have managed to do it better this time is irrelevant.

If you want to argue self-defence by Russia, that would at least be somewhat on-topic, rather than an ad hominem. But it would be on you to demonstrate:

<snip>

I merely pointed out defending Russia on the grounds that the US does it as well is not my argument (because thats certainly what you seem to think it is). It would be better to argue the US does it to Russia or the US does it enough times to others that Russia is justified to be worried that they might do it to them.

The summary of the quote says Putin's talking about elections, then Putin uses the word 'affairs.' Unless the original article was lying, when Putin said 'affairs,' he was referring to 'elections.'

So stop moving the goalposts. There is no call to do so an attempt to deflect criticism of a dictator. Not when he is being criticized for setting in motion a chain of events that put one of the most ghastly fuckwits in the history of American politics into the White House.

I certainly disagree with how you read it, but irregardless by focusing on interfering by election meddling, as opposed to interfering in general, it is a case of special pleading. But I go in more detail later.

Stop moving the damn goalposts and concentrate on the matter at hand- namely, Putin trying to deflect responsibility for his own country's involvement in manipulating a foreign election. By claiming he lacked the capability, and that the Americans do it to him, and that it was 'Ukrainians, Tartars, or Jews' who did it, not 'real' Russians in any case. All of which is obvious bullshit and does not need or merit defense.

The Jews did it is a bullshit argument? No shit Sherlock. However despite posting on here for years, you seem to not understand that the OP can spawn several side topics. I choose to focus on one. The fact you prefer to talk about another side topic is your own prerogative. Although I suspect if we just did that it would become an echo chamber pretty quickly.

Heck, the US could literally help overthrow a democratically elected regime (1950s Iran or 1970s Chile) and you could argue, well they aren't interfering in the elections, because they did it after the election occurred. The broad question is "under what circumstances is it ok to interfere with another nation's internal affairs", NOT "under what circumstances is it ok to interfere with another nation's internal affairs via interference in their electoral processes." The latter is a purely arbitrarily distinction which doesn't change the broad principle being discussed, and is use to people trying to nitpick and make pseudo justifications "ah but when we do it, we do it in a different manner so its ok."

No one is doing this, except that you are blatantly trying to change the subject away from the specific bit of heinous bullshit being discussed, in an attempt to make it about some other heinous bullshit that happened forty years ago on another continent or something.

Bull fucking shit. Since the point flew right over your head, lets go through this slowly. Arguing that we should focus on interfering via election meddling ONLY as opposed to the more broad interfering in general is a facile argument. One can literally interfere and affect much worse change than what Russia did, and would be ok under this metric because they did it via a method other than election meddling. I didn't just point out this is theoretical, I gave two examples of what I mean which did not involve election meddling (and frankly are worse). Apparently for some reason beyond me you interpreted that as trying to shift the goalposts. Shit I will know not to give examples next time to illustrate my point for fear you might think I am moving the goalposts.

Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Putin took part in what is essentially an interview for propaganda purposes by BOTH sides. He threw some shit on the wall and made nonsensical claims, which is exactly what you do in this situation. And now you have a bunch of people on this board losing their shit over it as if it were serious business and making a mountain out of a molehill. Congratulations, you failed the shit test.

aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either.

...yeah, one would think that even within Nigeria, attempting to pose as someone you are not for the purposes of scamming other people is a crime. And in fact, people have actually been arrested there for the classic Nigerian Prince email scam.

Yes, these things are generally known as "419 scams" because that's the relevant section of Nigeria's criminal code. So it is actually illegal, even in Nigeria, but local enforcement is... erm... don't hold your breath.

Right, because I never post anything critical of the American government's actions abroad. But that is not the topic of this thread.

You yourself posted an article in the OP where America's actions abroad are being brought up by Putin, the guy you're criticising. You yourself quoted the relevant lines to argue against it. Its clear therefore that such actions are relevant to this thread, and hence SDN members opinions are relevant to it. If this isn't the appropriate thread to ask your opinion on something you yourself post and quote, pray tell when should we have that as a topic?

Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

See, the problem with the approach you're using here is that if we accept it, any conversation about any present-day bad action can always be redirected and whatabouted into a discussion of some crime that took place in the distant past, possibly before anyone now participating in the conversation was even born.

If you have a license to derail conversations about whether or not Putin is being super racist and contemptible in his attempts to deflect responsibility for Russian interference in an election that put Bozo the Clown in the Oval Office, because of what Eisenhower's CIA did to Mossadegh in the 1950s... you have a license to derail everything, forever.

At which point you're basically advancing the argument "no conversation about current events, or for that matter historical events, is allowed, unless it is on the topic of the worst thing ever done by whichever side in the debate I like less." That is a grossly unfair standard of debate, and one that is nakedly, opportunistically favorable to whichever side you happen to be on.

Moreover, this side topic did not evolve organically or naturally. It was an extremely blatant derail, by you, as a one liner. You were very transparently trying to stop discussion of the original post by asking an "armor piercing question" of "so, instead of talking about what Putin said about Russian interference in the 2016 election, let's instead talk about who has done more shit, as a time-averaged thing over the past seventy years, Russia or the US?"

It is super obvious what you are doing, and nothing you do is going to camouflage it.

See, the problem with the approach you're using here is that if we accept it, any conversation about any present-day bad action can always be redirected and whatabouted into a discussion of some crime that took place in the distant past, possibly before anyone now participating in the conversation was even born.

If you have a license to derail conversations about whether or not Putin is being super racist and contemptible in his attempts to deflect responsibility for Russian interference in an election that put Bozo the Clown in the Oval Office, because of what Eisenhower's CIA did to Mossadegh in the 1950s... you have a license to derail everything, forever.

At which point you're basically advancing the argument "no conversation about current events, or for that matter historical events, is allowed, unless it is on the topic of the worst thing ever done by whichever side in the debate I like less." That is a grossly unfair standard of debate, and one that is nakedly, opportunistically favorable to whichever side you happen to be on.

Moreover, this side topic did not evolve organically or naturally. It was an extremely blatant derail, by you, as a one liner. You were very transparently trying to stop discussion of the original post by asking an "armor piercing question" of "so, instead of talking about what Putin said about Russian interference in the 2016 election, let's instead talk about who has done more shit, as a time-averaged thing over the past seventy years, Russia or the US?"

It is super obvious what you are doing, and nothing you do is going to camouflage it.

Simon the claim about US interfering is right in the OP by Putin. The creator of the OP quoted the line and made comments about what they thought of that line. TRR didn't just talk about Putin being a racist. I am also giving a dissident opinion on that particular line. How is it a derail when the topic is right in the article it quoted? Now the article raises several points, and the title chooses to focus on one of them, as you very well know a title cannot put every single point of the article in it. Its not my problem that you want to only talk about one point raised in the OP (Putin being a racist) and I want to talk about another. Accusing me derail by discussing a point raised in the OP which you don't want to talk about is frankly a way to try and shut down debate.

Here is the crux of the matter. If Putin interfered outside of the election cycle, is that ok? If it is, I would like you to elaborate more on why is it wrong only to do it in the context of an election. If the answer is still no, its a tacit admission that my point stands about interfering being wrong generally, not just in elections. * Then the next line of questioning is, are the US and Russia doing it to each other say within the last few years? If the answer is yes, then the question is, what would you like done about it?

* and since Putin made a statement about American interference in Russia's elections, it becomes very relevant to discuss interference in general rather than interference via the election, if you were to actually agree that its the more important principle

Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Putin said the word 'affairs' in the specific context of electoral interference. The article TRR quoted reads "Putin claimed that the United States interferes in Russian elections "all the time" but that it was "impossible for us" to do the same."

Then, after that did he even mention some Prime Directive-esque principle of noninterference that Russia supposedly follows.

The context is extremely clear here. Putin is not talking about interventions in general, or if he is, his statements about "we do not meddle in other countries' affairs" is a stupid, insulting lie, because Russia is interfering in the affairs of multiple countries at this very moment. Either Putin is simply telling lies that are irrelevant and not a reason for you to derail the thread, or Putin is talking about elections and his words are not a reason for you to derail the thread.

...

Why are you so opposed to having a specific, object-level discussion about this particular thing, instead of trying to turn it into a general history of the Cold War? It is not now, and has never been, a common principle of all intelligent discussion that all discussions of specific topics must be forcibly hijacked and muddied until they turn into broad discussions of the past fifty years of world history carried out on the terms of the hijacker.

Putin said the word 'affairs' in the specific context of electoral interference. The article TRR quoted reads "Putin claimed that the United States interferes in Russian elections "all the time" but that it was "impossible for us" to do the same."

Then, after that did he even mention some Prime Directive-esque principle of noninterference that Russia supposedly follows.

The context is extremely clear here. Putin is not talking about interventions in general, or if he is, his statements about "we do not meddle in other countries' affairs" is a stupid, insulting lie, because Russia is interfering in the affairs of multiple countries at this very moment. Either Putin is simply telling lies that are irrelevant and not a reason for you to derail the thread, or Putin is talking about elections and his words are not a reason for you to derail the thread.

Why are you so obsess with interfering via elections as opposed to interfering in general? I already told you I interpreted the statement to mean in general, and I certainly wasn't the only one. TRR talked about Russian interference in Syria in his opening post which was certainly not to do with interfering via election meddling, at least not in Syria. You haven't answered whether you think its ok if the interference was outside of the election cycle? Why is that I wonder?

Why are you so opposed to having a specific, object-level discussion about this particular thing, instead of trying to turn it into a general history of the Cold War? It is not now, and has never been, a common principle of all intelligent discussion that all discussions of specific topics must be forcibly hijacked and muddied until they turn into broad discussions of the past fifty years of world history carried out on the terms of the hijacker.

You broken record method of debating is getting more flagrant. Your strawman about turning this into a cold war discussion is quite laughable, when the very example you accused me of using was to illustrate that one can do worse interference without needing to do so via an election. The argument was to demonstrate how stupid your " lets focus on interfering via elections only" line of thinking. The fact that the example was fifty years ago wouldn't change the point its trying to illustrate. Would it make a difference if I pointed out an example only last week even though it illustrates the same underlined principle? Of course not. This focussing on an old example is just a red herring and quite ironic since you accused me of using the ultimate red herring technique of derailing.

The first time you could make a honest mistake, but the second time after it was pointed out to you, its not an excuse.

Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Why are you so obsess with interfering via elections as opposed to interfering in general? I already told you I interpreted the statement to mean in general...

Because I resent your effort to derail the main topic of the original post, consider it to be part of a pattern of similar disruptive behavior on your part, and fully intend to call you out on it.

...and I certainly wasn't the only one. TRR talked about Russian interference in Syria in his opening post which was certainly not to do with interfering via election meddling, at least not in Syria. You haven't answered whether you think its ok if the interference was outside of the election cycle? Why is that I wonder?

Again, because I resent your effort to derail the main topic of the original post, consider it to be part of a pattern of similar disruptive behavior on your part, and fully intend to call you out on it.

The fact that someone else remarked as an aside that when Vladimir Putin claims "Russia does not meddle in other nations' affairs," he is objectively lying? That fact does not automatically mean the conversation should be exclusively, or even mainly, about trying to say "well, other countries are worse about this!"

Read the fucking thread title, and if you want to have a thread about something radically different before the main topic got more than two posts' worth of discussion, start a new thread. Even quote the same article if you want. But don't hijack this thread so that you can bring up 'examples' from fifty years ago or extraneous bullshit in order to avoid or sabotage discussion of how Putin is handling accusations that his country interfered in a foreign election in a rather blatant way that seems very likely to have tipped the outcome.